CCAR RESPONSA
New American Reform Responsa
145. The Name of God
QUESTION: Our librarian has asked to what extent we treat the name of God as sacred. He is concerned about two different matters: a) the library subscribes to a number of Israeli Hebrew newspapers and magazines which regularly deal with religious matters and use adonai (the tetragramaton), elohim or el; b) various classes in the religious school use photo copies of prayers as well as Torah portions in order to practice reading. Need any of these Hebrew texts be buried or be disposed through incineration? May they simply be discarded? (Edward Feinberg, Boston MA)
ANSWER: Sensitivity about the written name of God was partially derived from the command to obliterate names of the idols (Deut 12.3 ff) with the subsequent injunction that this was not to be done to “the Lord your God.” Our concern with the name of God stems equally from the third commandment, “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain,” (Ex 20.7; Deut 5.11) and one interpretation of this commandment. There was some discussion of this matter in the Talmud (Arahin 6a) in which we heard of a pagan who gave a large wooden beam to be used in the construction of the Temple. It was incised with the name of God and there was some question whether the beam could be worked and the name of God erased. Talmudic authorities decided that this incised name was not sacred as it was not the usual place in which the name of God was written. The medieval authorities agreed with this decision (Rashi ad loc; Yad Hil Yesodei Torah 6.1 ff).
The Talmud continued the discussion and indicated that despite the passage in Arahin in most instances the name was to be preserved (Mak 22a) and the later tradition followed this precaution (Yad Hil Yesodei Torah 6.1 ff). Our texts dealt with the name inscribed on pieces of metal or tattooed on skin, uses which were not normal. These discussions brought about a later absolute reverence for the name of God which was never to be obliterated or destroyed (Sefer Hahinuh #437). This has led to great care with printed texts.
Tradition has, however, also asked about the individual who was responsible for the text and sanctity was limited to texts written by the pious Jews with sacred intent both explicitly stated or in the mind of the writer (Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 274 and commentaries). A piece written without such intent could be erased (Tashbetz Responsa I.177). Simon ben Zemah of Duran based this line of reasoning on an incident described in the Talmud in which he wrote the tetragramaton by mistake and so definitely not with intent (Git 20a).
As we look at the reasoning, we see that tradition has leaned toward strictness certainly with the tetragramaton and possible also with other names of God. These discussions were mainly from periods in which books were scarce and the printer’s piety could be assumed. Matters are different in contemporary Israel. Furthermore we would face an unusual burden if we tried to deal with the ordinary Hebrew newspaper or magazine in this fashion. We may on the contrary assume that no sacred intent was present.
It is a different matter when we are dealing with photocopies of Torah portions or prayerbooks. The text of these are educational tools that should be treated as sacred, for this too is part of the religious education of our children. They should learn appropriate respect for prayerbooks, Bibles and other traditional literature. When such loose pages are no longer usable they should not be discarded but either buried or incinerated if that is possible.
December 1990
If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.